This is in reply to the “frustrated candidate” questioning my letter Published on 25th August; I really appreciate the effort. With due respect, I would like to put this points forward:
1. My write-up was not about praising the commission but just the narration of the truth. At first, aspirants asked for rectification and revaluation, when it was accepted and rectified, they started questioning, “but why was there an error in the first place?”. This is the “negative lens” I was speaking about.
2. The paradox: should we be happy/appreciative for the rectification and justice done or should we start lamenting and stalling the process with our speculative conjectures and theories.
3. The ratio is not something that is engraved in the stones that the Commission can’t change, it can be change as per the urgency and demand of the situation. UPSC many times calls more candidates (in the term of ratio) for mains than the post advertised.
4. When one is studying a “topic”, one should not draw a line between UG/PG level; how can one probably tell that what depth of understanding is UG level or PG level? Compartmentalising in the studies and making artificial boundaries in our preparation is one of the reason for the failure of many candidates.
5. Any topic or subject needs to be prepared holistically rather than compartmentalising it. After all, we are appearing for one the most prestigious exam. One can’t tell “give UG level paper”: because there is no scientific boundary as such.
6. Moreover, despite the “PG level” paper as being claimed; many candidates have cleared for mains and the need requisite ratio for the mains exam is easily reached. My point is, it doesn’t matter what the level of paper is, when the level of paper is tough/high the cut-off plummets/escalates accordingly. It is the one’s preparation level that matters. If paper is tough for a well prepared serious candidate, it shall be tough for all.
Lastly, I agree in toto that Re-examination should not be considered at all. But, I would emphatically say again that we should stop speculating about the ubiquity of ‘errors’ and stop building unscientific and illogical theories and demands. As, Conan Doyle in Sherlock Holmes writes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”